Our favorite paper the Daily Mail has an article out filled with pictures of the disturbing riots which are occurring in the UK. One thing which really struck me was the small stature of the riot police in the photographs. Maybe it is just me, but these don’t look like a very intimidating lot. Then I saw this picture, which is even more surprising. I think an appropriate caption would be: We’ll have this riot sorted out in short order!

I know this was an emergency, so perhaps they were short staffed? Or could it be that they had to assemble a riot squad on short notice? Perhaps this is a demonstration of their new small unit tactics? Feel free to play at home and suggest your own explanations in the comments section. Some of those riot police are so small, it reminded me of a jackass skit (NSFW):

Elsewhere in the article they show this picture of what they call a female robocop standing watch. I’m guessing the editors saw this as projecting an exciting image of girlpower. To me she looks unimpressive, and in fact appears frightened. I’m sure the feminists in the audience will disagree, but to me it looks like she is playing riot squad. Shouldn’t she have been equipped with a big enough truck and a belt fed weapon, so she could whoop with glee and intimidate the rioters?

All of this reminded me of a storyOz Conservative noted in his recent post on the topic of the riots. As the Daily Mail explained several months ago, Insp Diane Bamber sued for discrimination because she felt that the physical requirements for the riot squad were unfair to a woman of her age:

For 30 years it has been used to test the fitness of officers who police riots and other outbreaks of serious public disorder.

The so-called ‘shield run’ involves officers covering a distance of 500 metres in less than two minutes, 45 seconds while wearing full riot gear and carrying a shield.

But when Inspector Diane Bamber, 51, failed to meet the time limit, she claimed she had been left humiliated.

That’s right! Physical standards humiliated her! Unconfirmed reports have it that her girl power and moxie were both seriously bruised by having to actually do more than dress up and pose in the gear of a riot officer. She was further aggrieved by the officers who would have to make up for her unfitnessserve with her should a riot ever occur:

When Insp Bamber applied to retake the shield run, it is alleged that one of her colleagues remarked: ‘She’s got no f****** chance.’

Fortunately, this travesty did not stand and the tribunal ruled in her favor.

Judge Hilary Slater said Insp Bamber’s claims of indirect sex and age discrimination were ‘well-founded’.

Noting that the officer had ‘suffered humiliation at being sent away from the course’, Judge Slater added: ‘The tribunal concludes that the claimant was put at the disadvantage suffered by women and persons of her age group in that she failed the test and was not able to complete the training.’

She could recieve up to £30,000 for her bruised girlpower and the department has now lowered the standard enough that even she was able to pass the newly watered down test. This opened the floodgates for similarly unqualifieddiscriminated against women in the police force:

The Mail on Sunday understands that the Association of Chief Police Officers is now reviewing the lawfulness of the physical training formats for 13 specialist operational roles, including those for firearms officers, which could discriminate against women and older officers.

Edit Aug 11: Commenter ruddyturnstone pointed out that the picture I linked to from the original article is not in fact of Insp Bamber, but of her neighbor. From the bottom of the Daily Mail article:

The newspaper version of this article on June 12 carried a picture said to be of Insp Diane Bamber. In fact the photograph was of a neighbour. We apologise for the mistake.

62 Responses to Affirmative action brigade meets a real life riot

My guy made the comment last night that they should go back to having the minimum height requirement of 6ft to be in the police. I have just looked it up and it was actually 5ft 10. I hadn’t really thought about it till he mentioned it (I had been surprised at the police but lack of numbers rather than height personally I’m blaming Teresa May for being softly softly ‘we’ll ask the police what they need in the morning’ – they should bringing in riot police from other forces not waiting till the morning but that’s a whole other topic).

What do the men on this board think about that, should there be a minimum height requirement? Would anyone think it was discrimination on men who are shorter?

Dalrock;
Do you remember that over here, during the 2000 elections, Bush Junior promised that he would ‘de-feminize’ the military? Of course, it’s more feminized now than it was under Clinton. I remember in 2001, hearing Junior’s speeches, one would think that the only reason we were going to Afghanistan was to liberate Afghan women.

A lot of military guys have told me that a main reason we’re getting our butts kicked by the Taliban is because the Afghan warlords somehow aren’t impressed by a bunch of guys commanded by women playing soldier. Not only that, but the female officials’ attempts to feminise Afghan culture is swelling the Taliban’s ranks.

I’ve heard Canadians saying the same thing. Also, these would-be social engineers have even feminized the Mounties; and the Eskimos hold them in such contempt that the government can barely control its own northern provinces.

What do the men on this board think about that, should there be a minimum height requirement? Would anyone think it was discrimination on men who are shorter?

I wouldn’t have any problem with it. There are undoubtedly many shorter men who anyone would be foolish to start a fight with. But bigger and taller men have a psychological advantage, especially when you are talking about crowd control. The goal isn’t to beat the crowd in a fight, but ideally to convince the crowd they don’t want to get into the fight in the first place. As I understand it many state police departments used to have fairly strict height requirements, but this was changed because it was seen as discriminating against women.

I don’t know how tall these guys are, but I would say they send a strong message by their physical presence, even if they weren’t carrying M4s.

Noting that the officer had ‘suffered humiliation at being sent away from the course’, Judge Slater added: ‘The tribunal concludes that the claimant was put at the disadvantage suffered by women and persons of her age group in that she failed the test and was not able to complete the training.’

Never mind the “disadvantage” the out-of-shape old bag will suffer when confronted with a young, fit male. Never mind the “disadvantage” her comrades will suffer because she can’t pull her weight. Never mind the “disadvantage” society suffers when thugs don’t fear the ludicrous old women of the riot police. I hope this fucking idiot liberal judge got her house torched in the riots.

Some years ago, I was talking to a Marine sergeant about non-lethal weapons, and he said, “when my platoon aims its shotguns at a crowd, that’s a non-lethal weapon – a lot of ’em just run away.”

A lot of military guys have told me that a main reason we’re getting our butts kicked by the Taliban is because the Afghan warlords somehow aren’t impressed by a bunch of guys commanded by women playing soldier.

And more to the point, we’re not allowed to kill people who mess with us. We take fire from a village, and we should level the village and kill everyone in it. But of course we don’t.

The people who support these policies are contributing to the deaths of innocent people. The first requirement of a protector should be the ability to protect. The only people being discriminated against are those who aren’t strong enough to protect us.

What do the men on this board think about that, should there be a minimum height requirement? Would anyone think it was discrimination on men who are shorter?

For riot police? Maybe. I can see the extra height being an effective deterrent. However, some combat roles are better filled by average to slightly below average height men. I’ve read that the ideal US Navy Seal is somewhere between 5’8″-5’10”.

The police are there to intimidate, first by their physical size and demeanor, then their weapons and skill to use same, then community support, then color of law. The painful fact of the matter is, big burly men are more intimidating than women or short guys. This is not to say that short guys and women are not capable of police work, but AGAIN if the concept is to intimidate so as to limit the need to use force, then clearly big, tall, strong, men are vastly better suited for this task than those who aren’t.
Someone mentioned Navy SEALs and their optimum height (5:08-5:10), this is an apples and oranges comparison. The military are ordered into a combat theater and given broad rules of engagement, with the purpose of killing people and breaking things…not so the police. The police are to keep the peace, protect private property and affect the arrest of those who have committed a crime; deadly force is only to be used to protect their life or that of an innocent third party.
Feminization and affirmative action has done great harm to the ability of the police force to intimidate and have emasculated and demoralized the rank and file. Few respect female cops…they are laughed at by the thugs and held in contempt by most of their peers.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

That second picture of the riot police looks like a bunch of children dressed up in Halloween costumes. And the “female robo-cop” does look nervous. Kinda cute too, but I don’t think that’s exactly an advantage when confronting a bunch of violent thugs on the street.

There are two reasons women are generally unsuitable to be riot police.

1. Lesser physical ability. This is obvious.

2. Lack of mercy. Most women have never had to restrain themselves from applying physical violence, because there are strong social taboos against hitting women, which make them unlikely to have ever gotten into a physical fight, and their lack of strength means that they have never needed to restrain themselves from physical violence. A man of average build could easily kill another man with his bare hands, while for most women this is nearly impossible.

This has far-reaching consequences, because men have been socialized with many “internal safeties” to prevent themselves from killing someone out of anger. Women haven’t been socialized this way, and any of the “catfights” on the local news show an utter lack of mercy. Women will keep punching and kicking long after their opponent is incapacitated. Men of above-average strength are the exact opposite – it’s not for nothing that “gentle giant” is a common phrase. This is a psychological difference, and a recipe for disaster if you suddenly equip such women with lethal weapons, then fill them with fear from a hostile mob.

Oh, and just for the lulz, here is a video comparing London riot police to Korean riot police. As a side note, Korean riot police are mostly military conscripts, most are 18 or 19 years old. Now imagine the London riot police facing off with the Korean rioters.

If I was at a Demo, and the police were coming at me… Go through the women. Don’t care how trained they are — they are vulnerable if up against a fr 15 stone men hyped on adrenalin. If you are not around 15 stone, fit, and tall, you have no place in the shield wall.

Because there will be protesters who are bigger, just as motivated, and more practiced at mayhem and causing injury. Armed — shotgun to assault rifle — different story. But not in shat is a shoving match.

The miners from Thatchers time would have broken these lines in ten seconds.

There was one criminal not shown in the British riot police segment. The idiot that deployed the men that way. 8 men couldn’t handle that street width and the group in the distance were too far and too few to support them. Massive force, for good or ill, is needed to quell rioting.

@by_the_swordI wonder if the later-period Roman legions looked similar to those British police officers.
No, legionars were not Romans. They often hired submitted tribes inside Roman Empire or even barbarians. They were strong, disciplined but not always loyal.

Legion
They may just didn’t have the manpower. Do you think that old bitch that got the courts to pass her on to qulifications of a riot cop was available to stand on the line. This is an actual riot and reality is at hand and where are all of the police? Those 8 guys may have been all they had for the job. .

My brother is overseas in theater right now. His commentary on his fellow soldiers is interesting.

On female solders:

Of the dozen or so he knows personally, two are competent, and one is capable of serious ass-kicking. Anyone who messes with her is asking for death by her hands. If trapped and surrounded, she’d kill a dozen assailants before she was brought down. if they tried to get her alive, he says, not one of them would survive.

On the other hand, the other one who’s competent is just average, but she’s a stellar female soldier.

The other 20 are, in his opinion, though apparently qualified on paper, useless in combat, distractions on base, accustomed to fucking literally every male who walks by, hence distraction, and are the worst elements for morale in all circumstances. They’re the most negative, the least responsive, the first to shirk duty, the last to volunteer for an difficult or exposed job, and the least reliable in the field.

All the men know it. The few females who are decent soldiers think they’re trash.

And yet, they get the same benefits – if not more – as the men, are often treated better, are allowed to cost the army fortunes and cause major disturbances with endless flings in the corps. He says he knows someone on an aircraft carrier who says the same thing about women on ships. Keeping women on ships, confined with stressed, haggard sailors doing hard jobs under pressure, is notoriously awful for discipline – for every rank. Lots of generals have fucked up operational strength by getting nailed in controversies they should never have been exposed to.

The women don’t benefit from being coddled, and make no bones about it, standards all around are dropped through the floor to get these women in the ranks. That’s the only way they get in. And the loudest feminist screams can’t change that.

The truth is very clear and obvious: Feminist screeching has drastically reduced the fighting effectiveness of our armed forces. They can bitch and whine about it, but even fighting women admit it’s hard to justify the expense and the drain on military resources and effectiveness.

Pathetic. The army is not a Solidarity Booster and Achievement Medal for women. Of all the branches of government, its purpose is purely pragmatic.

I seem to be the only Brit on here, so perhaps Dalrock would like to know what it has been like here in Riot-Zone, now that it seems – for the moment – to be over.

Pretty Scary. Given where I live I realised that my apartment block would be a prime target for Rioters, so I reminded myself where my items of self-defence were. I then considered what I would have to do to get the women out, and to safety. I kept a constant eye open, and checked the building late at night to ensure there was nothing untoward. I monitored the scene not from the MSM (who are bothe too slow and toocensored) but from various blogs where the real situation was being constantly updated.

The Police are powerless, and too afraid to do anything – even running away from fifteen year olds – as you can see from Videos. The rioting – the worst in my memory – continued for three days before the Prime Minister, his Home Secretary and The Mayor thought it worth returning from their holdiays, – and then the rioting got worse, as the government are too gutless to call in the troops. We held India for two centuries with only thirty thousand, but we could not hold our capital city with six thousand police. There is no political will. The people defended themselves – and some were killed in the process. London and other cities has not burned on this scale since 1940 (and 1944) but then we were being attacked by the most powerful country in the world, not a rag-tag bag of schoolboys.

The Government is now trying to white-wash what happened and shift the blame.It will happen again. There are I think connections between various matters frequently discussed here and on other Men-Friendly blogs and these riots.

[D: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’m glad to read that you and yours made it through ok.]

In the book More Guns Less Crime a correlation is demonstrated between the number of police shootings and the proportion of female officers. As many have explained above, the differences between the sexes mean that when a physical confrontation escalates a female officer will generally have to resort to using a firearm before a male officer would. Or in a mixed unit, their male counterpart might find himself resorting to a firearm earlier in the confrontation. More female cops = more police shootings. What were the London riots triggered by, again?

Although the stats in the book are now a bit too dated to take the following into account, I would expect that with the general decline or abolishment of recruiting standards, that there might also be an increasing proportion of smaller and less fit males, further excacerbating this trend.

I know that 20 years ago I knew a fellow at University, a 6 foot tall 4 foot wide brick shithouse who could shoot, who had enormous trouble getting into the Mounties as he was not very ‘diverse’.

This video is the one excerpts were taken from in the UK vs Korea riot tactics video Josh shared. This one starts a bit earlier, and you can see how the UK riot police were acting/reacting just before the crowd started pouring in. I’m guessing this video has/will go viral because it is so compelling.

What I’m curious about is why the two single riot officers keep running back and forth. Are they simply too afraid to pair up and hold the line with the other 6? Or is this a riot control tactic? To me it looks like they are afraid, and it also looks like their fear is what gave the rioters the confidence to come swarming out. I’d be interested in other opinions on this, especially from those who have direct training/experience in this sort of thing.

I live in London as well, although I’m fortunate enough to live in an area that was unaffected by the riots. There’s been a lot of nonsense bandied about in the main-stream media (as you would expect).

The main cause of these riots is the overblown sense of entitlement that these chavs have: the culture of being owed a living for doing nothing.

To be honest, part of me smiled when I saw the riots. It gives me a feeling of ‘I told you so’. Unfortunately, politicians will consider the cause of the riots to be the fact that their left wing policies don’t go far enough.

Dalrock,
I’ve been the police for 30 years and spent 10 years in the training division. I have no idea what those cops are doing, especially the two back benchers running back and forth. Further, I have no idea why those other cops 200 yards down the street are not rushing up to support the breached line in retreat. Where are the gas teams? Where are the Horses? Where are the K9 units? Where are the arrest teams? Where are the fire hoses? Where are the flying wedge formations? Where are the riot batons? This video is shocking in its display of police incompetence!

[D: Thanks! I hope you don’t mind that I quoted you on my post on the topic.]

No defense of double standards here. If a woman can walk the walk, she should be eligible for the job, if not then she shouldn’t be.

Still, the Daily Mail/Oz Conservative take on the Bamber case seems a little distorted.

First of all, Inspector Bamber is a thirty year veteran of the force. She wasn’t seeking merely to be a member of the riot squad, but a Commander of one. In other words, her duties, if she got the job, would probably NOT involve running with a shield in her hands on the front line. This might explain why, according to the article, “she had had been led to believe that she would not have to take part in the shield run.” Thus, according to her version, she was blindsided by the requirement. And, I have to say, that does seem plausible. Why would the Commander of the riot squad be charging the front line of protestors? Because that is unlikely, why would doing so, and in a specified time, be part of the test for the job.

Secondly, what happened next is not clear. According to the article, she asked to run the course again, but one of her colleagues said she had “no f—-ing chance” of passing it. According to the judge at the tribunal, she was “sent away from the course.” And that’s what caused the ruling in her favor, the humiliation of being ridiculed and sent away. NOT merely faliling the test.

Thirdly, it is also not clear just how Bamber did, eventually, pass the test. According to the article,

“In fact she did pass at the second attempt several months later – after Greater Manchester Police made it easier by raising the time limit to three minutes.

“The tribunal heard that on the second occasion, Insp Bamber gave herself the equivalent of an extra 20 seconds by starting at the front of the group. Previously, she had started at the back but the clock starts when the first person sets off.”

Does that mean she actually had three minutes to run the test the second time, whereas before she only had 2 minutes and 45 seconds? Or does it mean that, the first time, she actually had less than two minutes and forty five seconds, because she started at the back but the clock started running when the first person went? Does it mean that the time for the test was raised to three minutes just for her, or for all applicants? Etc, etc. Notice too that the article states that the test has now been dropped by the force. Does that mean it has been dropped for all applicants to the riot squad, or just for the Commander positions?

Fourthly, it is not all clear how much, if any, money Inspector Bamber is to be awarded. The article says she “now stands to win up to £30,000,” but that the amount of compensation has not yet been determined. What does that mean? Where does that figure come from? Is that the amount she asked for? The statutory maximum that the tribunal can award? Or something else entirely? “Up to £30,000” can just as easily mean one penny as it can thirty thousand pounds.

The entire article is vague, unclear, subject to conflicting interpretations, and appears to have been written with a specific and simplistic agenda involved, and does a poor job of actually reportring the facts. The reputation of the Daily Mail is not so hot either, as it is known not only for its reactionary bias, but for inaccuracy and sensationalism.

Finally, I’m not sure where you got that photo of Inspector Bamble, but the link states that the one ostensibly of her that ran in the paper was, in fact, not a picture of her, but of her neighbor. That seems in keeping with the shoddy reporting throughout.

Thanks, but I would like to make clear I live on my own. The women I referred to were my 97 year old neighbour downstairs, a single mum and her four year old next door and a couple of Philipino women also downstairs.

I’m not sure where you got that photo of Inspector Bamble, but the link states that the one ostensibly of her that ran in the paper was, in fact, not a picture of her, but of her neighbor.

Good catch. Thanks. I found the pic with a search of google images. I’ve corrected the original post.

She wasn’t seeking merely to be a member of the riot squad, but a Commander of one. In other words, her duties, if she got the job, would probably NOT involve running with a shield in her hands on the front line. This might explain why, according to the article, “she had had been led to believe that she would not have to take part in the shield run.” Thus, according to her version, she was blindsided by the requirement. And, I have to say, that does seem plausible. Why would the Commander of the riot squad be charging the front line of protestors? Because that is unlikely, why would doing so, and in a specified time, be part of the test for the job.

They are a bit vague on this, but either way she was taking the test everyone else had to take for the same job. Perhaps commanding riot officers can be done safely from a comfy chair, and the old boys club did this as a diabolical plan to keep old women from doing it. Perhaps not. What the article says is:

But on the day of the test, Insp Bamber was informed that all officers who wanted to be considered for events where trouble was a possibility would have to pass it.

This sounds like she wanted to be at events where trouble was a possibility. Again, maybe they have a squad of men carrying the commander around in a comfy chair. I don’t know.

Secondly, what happened next is not clear. According to the article, she asked to run the course again, but one of her colleagues said she had “no f—-ing chance” of passing it. According to the judge at the tribunal, she was “sent away from the course.” And that’s what caused the ruling in her favor, the humiliation of being ridiculed and sent away. NOT merely faliling the test.

Nope. The judge said she was humiliated by having to exit the course because she failed the shield run test. As the article stated earlier:

She agreed to run but she did not finish in the allotted time. Her failure meant she could not complete the rest of the training course.

The remark which hurt her feewings was from a colleague regarding her likelyhood of passing the second time, not a rejection from the instructors at the course:

When Insp Bamber applied to retake the shield run, it is alleged that one of her colleagues remarked: ‘She’s got no f****** chance.’

“They are a bit vague on this, but either way she was taking the test everyone else had to take for the same job.”

How do you know that? She said she had been led to believe that persons applying for the Commander role would not have to take it.

“Perhaps commanding riot officers can be done safely from a comfy chair, and the old boys club did this as a diabolical plan to keep old women from doing it. Perhaps not.”

Not from a “comfy chair,” but from behind the front lines, I would think. Someone has to direct the officers charging with their shields. Tell them where to go, what to do, when to retreat, etc. It seems to me that is precisely what the commander does, and he or she does so from behind the front line, not on it.

And, you know what, I would not put it past the “old boys club” that typically run police departments to add a requirement for a job for a woman applicant that they did not have for men. There are plenty of fat, old, out of shape police “commanders,” I wonder if all of them have been made to pass this test. As you say, “perhaps…perhaps not.” But we don’t know. Because the article doesn’t say. Police forces typically have cultures committed to maintaining traditional gender roles. They are hotbeds of machismo. And, because they are in the public sector, there are no market forces to punish them if they fail to utlize talented individuals, of whatever gender. The article, if it was worth a damn, would have attempted to explain why Bamber thought that the shield run was not going to part of her training for the commander role. Notice, despite the obvious “slant” of the article, they don’t dispute her contention that she was led to believe that it was not.

“What the article says is:

‘But on the day of the test, Insp Bamber was informed that all officers who wanted to be considered for events where trouble was a possibility would have to pass it.’

“This sounds like she wanted to be at events where trouble was a possibility. Again, maybe they have a squad of men carrying the commander around in a comfy chair. I don’t know.”

Of course she wanted to be at events where trouble was a possiblity. That’s where the riot squad is. But she wanted to command the squad, not merely be in it. And the comfy chair imagery, while cute, is kinda of a cheap shot. Especially as you are repeating yourself. Again, the Commander of the Squad is not leading the charge. He or she is in the back, probably in a mobile HQ, with a communications and video set up, links to the higher ups in the force and the civilian authorities, and in radio contact with the squad itself.

“Nope. The judge said she was humiliated by having to exit the course because she failed the shield run test. As the article stated earlier:

“‘She agreed to run but she did not finish in the allotted time. Her failure meant she could not complete the rest of the training course.

“The remark which hurt her feewings was from a colleague regarding her likelyhood of passing the second time, not a rejection from the instructors at the course:

“‘When Insp Bamber applied to retake the shield run, it is alleged that one of her colleagues remarked: “She’s got no f****** chance.”’ ”

Again, because of the shoddy way the article is written, that’s just not clear. What the article says is:

“She agreed to run but she did not finish in the allotted time. Her failure meant she could not complete the rest of the training course. When Insp Bamber applied to retake the shield run, it is alleged that one of her colleagues remarked: ‘She’s got no f****** chance.’

“In fact she did pass at the second attempt several months later – after Greater Manchester Police made it easier by raising the time limit to three minutes.

“The tribunal heard that on the second occasion, Insp Bamber gave herself the equivalent of an extra 20 seconds by starting at the front of the group. Previously, she had started at the back but the clock starts when the first person sets off.

“In her ruling, Judge Hilary Slater said Insp Bamber’s claims of indirect sex and age discrimination were ‘well-founded’.

“Noting that the officer had ‘suffered humiliation at being sent away from the course’, Judge Slater added: ‘The tribunal concludes that the claimant was put at the disadvantage suffered by women and persons of her age group in that she failed the test and was not able to complete the training.'”

Thus it is not all clear when the remark about her having no “f—-ing chance” was made. As I read it, it was made right after the first attempt, when she asked to run the course again. The article reports that remark seemingly in connection with that attempt, and then, in the next paragraph, says that “she did pass at the second attempt several months later…..” But you might be right. Either way, it is quite ambiguous as reported.

Finally, I notice you did not even respond to my points about the further ambiguity as to her eventual passing of the test. Was it really made easier for her? For only her? Was she in fact given two minutes and forty five seconds the first time? Or less, because she started at the back and the timing began when the first applicants started? Etc, etc.

The article is crap. It doesn’t even attempt to describe in a fair and accurate way what Bamber was told in advance, or what happened on the training ground on either occassion, or the basis for the tribunal’s ruling. Instead, it aims merely to provide an oppurtunity for a bunch of semi literate yobs to say, “Blimey, they changed the rules for some bint!” I think you are better than that.

I Googled Bamber’s name but couldn’t find any other account of this event. I would be very interested to read a full and accurate description of it, if anyone has one.

Meaning what, exactly? That she can be awarded that much? That that is the maximum the tribunal can award? I did a little research, and the average awards from these tribunals are much, much less than 30 k pounds. Did she even ask for that much? Again, who knows? The number appears to have been stuck in the article just for sensationalist purposes.

You are making a lot of assumptions, which doesn’t help the situation. I found a blog by a feminist cop about the issue. It is a pretty PC bunch but even they aren’t making the kinds of claims you are.

I spoke to a female COP once. I told her that even though she was smaller than me, with her training, she could probably subdue a guy like me in no time flat. She agreed. Then I asked what she would do for a 220 pound football player? She told me she’s trained to deal with many situations, but as things escalated, that’s when secondary measures come into play.

With that in mind, I’d much rather be subdued by a cop who’s 6’4″ who could subdue me with a bear hug than a small woman who’s more likely to use a baton, pepper spray or, nowadays, a Taser.

This is besides the fact that small, female cops are at greater risk when on duty. Large criminals would be far more likely to resist a woman of smaller stature if she can be easily overpowered.

I don’t mean to say that women have no place in law enforcement. Most of what cops do has nothing to do with physically confronting thugs. I just believe that these risks and shortcomings need to be acknowledged. Failure to do so puts everyone at risk.

“You are making a lot of assumptions, which doesn’t help the situation.”

Actually, I’m not. Just the opposite, in fact. I’m pointing out the ambiguities in the article. You are supplying the assumptions that the “facts” must be a certain way to justify the implicit message of the article, and you and OC’s siting of it.

“I found a blog by a feminist cop about the issue. It is a pretty PC bunch but even they aren’t making the kinds of claims you are.”

The blog contains little more than a link to the DM article, and, like you, seems to accept the “message” of that article at face value. And I’m not making any “claims.” I don’t know what all the facts are, and admit as much. While you are full of assumptions and claim to know exactly what happened, even though the article is so shoddy that you are required to do a lot of backing and filling to even make a plausible case. And that speaks to the value of the DM article. It doesn’t supply the facts, only the “outrage.” And neither does the blog. It simply accept the case as the DM presents them, it doesn’t provide the facts itself or even attempt to clarify the situation. The fact that it is a “PC” blog is really of no moment. Really, what’s the point of even siting it….”here’s a ‘PC’ blog and it accepts the DM as gospel, so I guess it must be…..” Allrighty then….

Really, what’s the point of even siting it….”here’s a ‘PC’ blog and it accepts the DM as gospel, so I guess it must be…..” Allrighty then….

She isn’t taking the DM as gospel, she is talking about her own experience as a 5ft6 female British cop who has been through the riot training. A number of the commenters there have experience in that area as well. But if you have better info, please do share it. You are starting with the assumption that no PC nonsense happens regarding the police dept, and specifically the riot squads. Because as we all know, feminists would never push for absurd standards to let unfit women into a job. The pictures of the riot formations with the extremely small officers I showed in the beginning of the post prove you are wrong. Feminist wishful thinking has overridden good judgment, but you refuse to acknowledge the facts when shown the proof.

I have no personal experience, nor claim any. But Bamber was already an Inspector (one rank higher than sargeant). She had been on the force for over thirty years, She was NOT applying to be a front line riot cop (which is what you are showing pictures of). She was applying to be a Commander. Specifically, an Initial Public Order Commander. Here is what such IPO Commanders do at potential riot sites:

“1.3 BRONZE COMMANDER (INITIAL PUBLIC ORDER COMMANDERS’)

“1.3.1 The Bronze Commander will be appropriately trained and will operate as ground
commander at the incident RV point or ground command point. The Bronze
Commander can command a maximum of 3 Police Support Unit’s and may be
supported by the Forward Command Vehicle. They must be supported by a tactical
advisor and should consider the use of a staff officer/loggist.”

The RV point is the rendez-vous point. The ground command point is self explanatory. It’s a command, not a front line, position she was applying for.. Duh, as that’s what it’s called. So, no, probably no sitting in a “comfy chair.” But also not leading the charge a la John Wayne either. She’s in command of up to three units and possibly a command vehicle. She stays at the RV or gound command point and directs things, commanding the front line troops, with the advice of a tactical advisor, and, possibly, another officer.

The above is from the Cheshire police, but I see no reason to think things are any different in Manchester.

Here’s a link to a programme for the training of IPO Commanders in Manchester:

Again, a quick glance at the description of the “Overview” section shows that the IPO Commader will be in an executive, not front line, situation. The phrase stressed repeatedly is “command responisibilities.”

I am NOT saying that PC, feminist non sense never happens in police departments or riot squads. What I am saying is that you are relying on an article from a highly suspect, polemical tabloid newspaper, which has left out a lot of the facts, is unclear, sensationalist, and was written in a shoddy style with no regard for journalistic standards of accuracy, never mind objectivity. This kind of thing is OC’s bread and butter. Again, I think that you are better than that.

“And what if there is a situation arises which requires all available manpower to get on the front-line? What about being prepared for all contingencies?”

With no one left behind to direct them? This is riot control, not the Alamo. In any event, if everyone has to be on the front line, then it’s a pretty fair bet that the line itself is not far from the command position. Which means there’s no need to be able to run forward in a specified period of time.

Anyway, your claim is clearly a back peddle from what has been argued here. We have been shown pictures of front line female riot control cops who appeared to be too small to do their jobs. Then we have been told that Bamber is just like them, because she is would-be woman front line riot control cop who, apparently, is too slow/weak to do the job. Then, when it is shown that that job (front line riot control cop) was not even the one she was applying for, you turn around and say, “So, maybe the brass will have to man (woman?) the front lines tooooooo!” If that’s the case, why stop there? Maybe the police commissioner, the mayor, and the prime minister should have to pass the test too. You can never be careful, and who knows what “contingencies” might arise?

FWIW, Dalrock, I think ruddy’s point of contention here is the fact that the article is poorly written and not at all clear on the the circumstances of the situation. So it is extremely hard to really know the complete truth, here.
As he said he is pointing out the ambiguities of the article..
I actually tend to agree with him’
(chalk that one up, we have been at loggerheads in the past)

ruddyturnstone: Are you in law enforcement?“With no one left behind to direct them? This is riot control, not the Alamo. In any event, if everyone has to be on the front line, then it’s a pretty fair bet that the line itself is not far from the command position. Which means there’s no need to be able to run forward in a specified period of time.

The Alamo would be quite different since that is warfare. . As for your inference, it doesn’t follow. I am imagining a scenario in which proper reinforcements are unavailable, and extra manpower is needed at the front line. So, according to your expert knowledge of police tactics, are you saying that there may not be a case in which “all hands” is called for?

Anyway, your claim is clearly a back peddle from what has been argued here. We have been shown pictures of front line female riot control cops who appeared to be too small to do their jobs. Then we have been told that Bamber is just like them, because she is would-be woman front line riot control cop who, apparently, is too slow/weak to do the job. Then, when it is shown that that job (front line riot control cop) was not even the one she was applying for, you turn around and say, “So, maybe the brass will have to man (woman?) the front lines tooooooo!” If that’s the case, why stop there? Maybe the police commissioner, the mayor, and the prime minister should have to pass the test too. You can never be careful, and who knows what “contingencies” might arise?”

Again, according to your experience in law enforcement, can you say that those in immediate command of riot police should not be held to the same physical standards as those under their command? Your attempt to turn around and use a reductio ad absurdam doesn’t work because civilian leaders are not in law enforcement and they are not expected to carry out law enforcement duties. As for the police commissioner–arguably because of his position he cannot be taking upon “front-line” duties as that would interfere with his other primary duties. (And by extension this is true of the civilian leadership as well.) There may be a different set of physical requirements for different commands if the performance of certain physical actions is not included in their responsibilities. You may think that the physical requirements are not necessary for this position, but such a claim would be more credible if someone like Buck would back it up.

And to finish my point about warfare vs. riot control — you just need to kill or incapacitate your opponents in warfare. With respect to riot control the use of manpower may be a bit more subtle since the aims are different (one of which is, presumably, controlling the number of injuries).

Front line commanders (which a “bronze commander” seems to be) should be well aware of the capabilities of their troops, and they should also be able to command respect of their troops. Both aims can be fulfilled by demanding the same physical preparedness of the commanders as of the troops.
How? It can be quite easy to overestimate the force of ones troops, and be highly displeased when after all they aren’t the supermen one thought. If a commander is as strong as his (her) troops, he (she) will know more accurately what they can do.
Respect is the recognition of competence which oneself would prefer not to encounter in battle. A front line commander should be competent in tactical matters, but I think (and may be sorely mistaken) that this kind of competence has relatively rapidly declining returns on investment in riot control, once incompetence has been left behind. Thus battle competence is needed, at least to jumpstart the respect given by the troops until tactical competence can kick in. If the commander is a weakling, he nor she would be respected, morale could flag which could have dire consequences when fighting needs to be done.

Please. You can rationalize anything, if you really want to. You can conjure up “contingencies” to your heart’s content. In this instance, you can posit some sort of situation in which “all hands” (but not quite all hands, as the police commissioner has “other primary duties” to attend to–which, of course, is inconsistent, because the IPO Commander has “other primary duties” too) are not only needed, but are needed at the front line, with their shields, and needed there, one presumes, in the time and over the distance the test requires. The IPOC arriving there 15 seconds later might mean the end of Western civilization.

I don’t need to be an expert on police tactics to know a last ditch, contrived rationalization when I read one. The point is, that in the normal course of the duties of the IPO Commander, the ability to pass this test is NOT required. That makes it suspect as a requirement for the job. Basically, what you are saying is that any police officer, of whatever rank, no matter how high, no matter how far removed from the front lines, may, perhaps, in some rare circumstances, be called upon to perform the duties of the front line riot police, and because of that, physical performance standards which otherwise sure give the appearance of being contrived for the purpose of keeping women out of those high ranking positions are completely acceptable. That doesn’t cut it, as a legal matter. Courts have, and should have, the power to label something a pretext, an excuse for discrimination, if that’s what it in fact is.

“No defense of double standards here. If a woman can walk the walk, she should be eligible for the job, if not then she shouldn’t be.”

Could, should, would are good words. But only if you think gender(sex) is a redundant concept.
If there is one woman good enough to walk the walk for every 20 men, then what’s the point in including them(unless of course for special women’s divisions).
Further complications like the Title IX, where women have much better odds to get scholarships, or making the team because fewer of them play.

“And, because they are in the public sector, there are no market forces to punish them if they fail to utlize talented individuals, of whatever gender. ”

otoh since they’re in the public sector, they’re more subject to the feminist lobby. A market susceptible place like the IT sector don’t seem to be reeling under the punishment(?), it’s still the feminists who are putting in the arguments like in my previous post, and

How about demanding that that industry should aim to employ more men who have less developed people skills because it would discriminate against men to set the same people skills standards for them as for women? Here people would say the best person for the job should get the job. Then why don’t they say that for the police?

I don’t want gender fairness, regardless of whether it’s achievable or not. I want men to be given incentives and help to succeed primarily, even if women fall by the wayside. Boosting girls the way the education system has done, and seeing how detriment it has been to boys, I don’t find it worthwhile to make concessions to the opposing team in any endeavor.

In order to drive away leftists, revolutionists should not only avoid involvement in efforts to help women, homosexuals, or racial minorities; they should specifically disavow any interest in such issues, and they should emphazise again and again that women, homosexuals, racial minorities, and so forth should consider themselves lucky because our society treats them better than most earlier societies have done.

-Theodore J. Kaczynski

Even the treatment part is superfluous, they should consider themselves lucky that they get to live in such a society.

[D: I’m not sure quoting the unabomber helps the case. I know that from a logical perspective the fact that he was a homicidal maniac doesn’t change the validity of his argument, but I don’t think it helps make the case.]

That ruddyturnstone is still arguing all of the feminist canards is very telling. Feminists want us to believe that the patriarchy is keeping qualified woman from serving in the riot squads. We’ve all seen these arguments before “but the only women who will do the job are the ones who are qualified for it. They will be just as good as the men. In fact they will be better because they have something to prove.” Reasonable people give them the benefit of the doubt, because it would be absurd to think they would want to push women who aren’t up to the task into the riot brigades. The thing is, sprinkling a few incompetent people into a unit will lower its effectiveness but can be masked. It creates sand in the gears but the machine generally functions well enough to pretend nothing happened. But imagine if they took all of those women and put them in a unit by themselves. What if you had an entire unit of women like the one in this picture. What if she didn’t have all of those much bigger, stronger men standing all around her, but had other women of her size? Or what if they made an entire squad out of the munchkins in this picture. It would be a disaster. This is what always happens. The feminists swear the women will be like GI Jane, just as tough and competent as the guys. They mock anyone who doesn’t buy it as being unreasonable, clouded from reality by sexism. Then once they win the public policy debate they start trickling in the munchkins, severely punishing anyone in the ranks who dares point out the truth.

Now ruddyturnstone is saying in effect, “sure they packed the ranks with women who don’t belong there, but this is management! We’d never pack management with incompetent women. Trust us.” The argument is that the job requirements which allow in the smallest weakest women are too strict when it comes to management. Nevermind the fact that because of these weaker standards there have to be plenty of women who have served in the riot squads for decades. What is stopping them from applying to be commander? Nothing. Not if they are anywhere near competent.

Short people, fat people and weak people should be discriminated against in being admitted to the police and especially riot squads, and the fire department as well. That will cut out a higher percentage of female applicants which is just fine.

If you are implying that ruddy is a feminist sympathizer, then you are ideed incorrect.

Ruddy and I have on many prior occasions engaged in heated exchanges , over at Marky Mark’s blog. He is a “mgtow” man, of that you can be sure.

I think maybe there is some misunderstanding here, because I don’t think that ruddy is arguing “that the patriarchy is keeping qualified woman from serving in the riot squads.” as you say.

Someone else must have nicked his nickname:

@ruddyturnstone

And, you know what, I would not put it past the “old boys club” that typically run police departments to add a requirement for a job for a woman applicant that they did not have for men.

And

Police forces typically have cultures committed to maintaining traditional gender roles. They are hotbeds of machismo. And, because they are in the public sector, there are no market forces to punish them if they fail to utlize talented individuals, of whatever gender.

Even if women had the same capabilities as men, the result of putting them ahead would be akin to think that marrying a 16 year old girl to a 40 year old man would work the other way too. Like the canadian situation described in new spearhead’s article.

The end of world scenarios in some religions are depicted with women taking place of men, I wonder if it merely means the end of that ethnic group.

Totally lacking in Way-virtue, these people will run amok, indulging in licentious behavior. In their turbid confusion they will fail to separate the men from the women in the monastic communities. From this generation on, the Way will be weakened.

When the Dharma is about to disappear, women will become vigorous and will at all times do deeds of virtue. Men will grow lax and will no longer speak the Dharma.

“The thing is, sprinkling a few incompetent people into a unit will lower its effectiveness but can be masked. It creates sand in the gears but the machine generally functions well enough to pretend nothing happened. ”

Indeed, women never built up their credentials from the ground-up, they have continued to take up what had already been set up by men, while creating their own niches in those places.

Regarding “good enough” women, (I am not sure of the correctness of some of his work because the guy sometimes comes across as a nutcase when it comes to religion)

Vjatcheslav got it right. Women shouldn’t be awarded leadership roles in the police/army (no more than they should be battling it out in the front lines) for the same reason that you don’t (and never will) see a woman behind the bench of the Dallas Cowboys, New York Yankees or Real Madrid FC. Simply put, they don’t command the respect of their troops.

With that said, it really is a sign of the backwardness of the world we live in that matters of actual importance such as the police force are primary targets of the Great Social Engineering Project, while the relatively insignificant world of professional sports is strictly off limits. Come to think of it, I sort of wonder how professional sports have managed to avoid it all this time. Might it have something to do with billionaire owners not wanting idiots fucking with their investment?